2004 Pa. Super. 409 - Commonwealth v. Davis’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “. . . more than mere suspicion or conjecture, the Commonwealth need not establish guilt to a mathematical certainty.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Strafford · 2005 Pa. Super. 5 - Commonwealth v. Ostrosky

2. “The standard we apply when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence is whether viewing all the evidence admitted at trial in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, there is sufficient evidence to enable the fact-finder to find every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. In applying the above test, we may not weigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for the fact-finder. In addition, we note that the facts and circumstances established by the Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of innocence. Any doubts regarding a defendant's guilt may be resolved by the fact-finder unless the evidence is so weak and inconclusive that as a matter of law no probability of fact may be drawn from the combined circumstances. The Commonwealth may sustain its burden of proving every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt by means of wholly circumstantial evidence. Moreover, in applying the above test, the entire record must be evaluated and all evidence actually received must be considered. Finally, the trier of fact while passing upon the credibility of witnesses and the weight of the evidence produced is free to believe all, part or none of the evidence. Furthermore, when reviewing a sufficiency claim, our Court is required to give the prosecution the benefit of all reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence. However, the inferences must flow from facts and circumstances proven in the record, and must be of such volume and quality as to overco”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 2008 Pa. Super. 206 - Commonwealth v. Smith

3. “A confession obtained during a custodial interrogation is admissible where the accused’s right to remain silent and right to counsel have been explained and the accused has knowingly and voluntarily waived those rights. The test for determining the voluntariness of a confession and whether an accused knowingly waived his or her rights looks to the totality of the circumstances surrounding the giving of the confession. Commonwealth v. Jones, 546 Pa. 161, 170 , 683 A.2d 1181, 1189 (1996) (citations omitted). ‘The Commonwealth bears the burden of establishing whether a defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his Miranda ‘rights.’[ 3 ] Commonwealth v. Bronshtein, 547 Pa. 460, 464 , 691 A.2d 907, 913 (1997) (citation omitted).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2013 Pa. Super. 82 - Commonwealth v. Harrell